Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

JimiTime

ButtimersLaw wrote: »

the problem with your analysis is that it advocates choice for everyone. Most people think choice is a good idea except when they disagree with the choice made by another.

You either agree that others are allowed to make choices which include choices we might not make ourselves, or you don't agree with the individual right to choose.

Not entirely. I certainly wouldn't like to see heterosexuals seek to change their sexuality,and would ask on what basis it could be seen that their sexuality is an issue. I believe other sexualities have valid issues linked to them.

For many years the gay movement quite rightly demanded tolerance from society, and it is reprehensible to see some elements from within the gay movement being intolerant to others who make different choices.

I agree.

Bloodwing

I think the one positive we can take from these types of discussions is that the people with the 1950's mindset are very much in the minority. It's encouraging to know that the vast majority of people in this country have come to the realisation that homosexuality is not the great threat that the catholic church claim it to be.

The day will come when the there's just a hand full of them left and nobody will listen to them but unfortunately that's going to take a bit more time. Look how long it took people to realise that people of different skin color were no less human than the rest, and there's still a few of those fools around.

It's also very hypocritical of those who are so dead set against homosexuality to make use of the advances in society that gay men and women are responsible for. For example the computer that some of them are typing on as we speak was made possible thanks to Alan Turing. So despite his "disease" or "disability" he was still capable of great things.

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

I advocate a person to be able to choose if they wish to change from their sexual desires. Be it a same sex attraction, attraction to pre pubescent children, attraction to animals, attraction to objects or whatever. If heterosexuality had the physiological and sociological issues that these other desires had, then I'd advocate people choosing to change from that also.

Hmmmm....what a surprise - homosexuality is lumped in with pedophilia, bestiality and auto-eroticism/fetishism but tellingly there is a big ol qualifying 'if' before heterosexuality.

Do heterosexuals never have any physiological and sociological issues around their expression of sexuality then?

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

Not entirely. I certainly wouldn't like to see heterosexuals seek to change their sexuality,and would ask on what basis it could be seen that their sexuality is an issue. I believe other sexualities have valid issues linked to them.



.

and that sir is the reason people believe you are homophobic. You believe homosexuality is 'curable' meaning you think it is a condition or disease. You believe it is akin to pedophilia and bestiality.

You cannot therefore be surprised if some people believe you are on the same page as the likes of Fred Phelps - you both spout the same bigoted nonsense.

keane2097

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do heterosexuals never have any physiological and sociological issues around their expression of sexuality then?

Usually when they're priests.

JimiTime

koth wrote: »

Sexual orientation isn't a matter of choice. If it was then people could change their sexual preference whenever the mood takes them.

Like people in prison you mean? Flippancy aside, I'm not saying its just about, 'I think I'll like boys today, and kids tomorrow, and women the day after, horses the day after.........'

Reparation as far as I can tell, says that environmental factors can have had an impact on sexual expression. Abuse, lack of a parent, an abusiove parent etc etc. In fact, from the studies I've seen, the whole genetic argument seems to suggest at best, that genetic influences are modest in sexuality.

Mental health professionals have a code of conduct to adhere to. Attempting to use unproven, banned and potentially harmful treatments on patients would be grounds for malpractice at the very least.

Indeed, but in terms of reparation, they haven't given any real details. They have decided to ban the treatment as a whole, rather than specific treatments. This is political.

Heres one example of someone who came through reparation.
http://www.comingoutloved.com/richard-cohens-story

Links234

JimiTime wrote: »

but for those who don't, they should be allowed try change

except we're talking about CHILDREN whom this harmful treatment is banned for, who's parents would decide for them that they need to change, and would coerce them into it. you know that whole thing I talked about earlier in the thread about LGBT youth being at serious risk of being thrown out of their homes by religious parents? yeah, well that kind of coersion.

Delirium

JimiTime wrote: »

Like people in prison you mean? Flippancy aside, I'm not saying its just about, 'I think I'll like boys today, and kids tomorrow, and women the day after, horses the day after.........'

Reparation as far as I can tell, says that environmental factors can have had an impact on sexual expression. Abuse, lack of a parent, an abusiove parent etc etc. In fact, from the studies I've seen, the whole genetic argument seems to suggest at best, that genetic influences are modest in sexuality.

I was speaking about the actual reparation therapy. The therapy is claims (with no evidence to back up the claims) to facilitate people who choose to change their sexual preference. All the examples you list portray homosexuality as a result of a damaged childhood. You realise that is a seriously outdated and illinformed stereotype?

Indeed, but in terms of reparation, they haven't given any real details. They have decided to ban the treatment as a whole, rather than specific treatments. This is political.

Heres one example of someone who came through reparation.
http://www.comingoutloved.com/richard-cohens-story

No, it's the result of examining the treatments and finding no evidence that the treatments work. It was actually shown they can be very damaging to the patient. And even with that, it was only banned with regards to minors. Any adult is free to attempt to rewire their sexual preference if they so wish.

Penn

JimiTime wrote: »

Not entirely. I certainly wouldn't like to see heterosexuals seek to change their sexuality,and would ask on what basis it could be seen that their sexuality is an issue.

You mentioned earlier that a homosexual should be able to change their sexuality if they wanted natural children with a partner.

Hypothetically, lets say that I'm a heterosexual male (I am, that's not the hypothetical part), and I decided that I didn't want children. Should I be able to change my sexuality so that I'm attracted to men, that way I'm not depriving any woman who I may fall in love with from having natural children?

Or perhaps, hypothetically, I'm sterile. Wouldn't the option to change my sexuality be a benefit then? I could suddenly become attracted to men, where being sterile would not be a factor.

So would you then agree, that the ability to change sexuality from heterosexual to homosexual would be equally as valid as the ability to change sexuality from homosexual to heterosexual?

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

and that sir is the reason people believe you are homophobic. You believe homosexuality is 'curable' meaning you think it is a condition or disease. You believe it is akin to pedophilia and bestiality.

You cannot therefore be surprised if some people believe you are on the same page as the likes of Fred Phelps - you both spout the same bigoted nonsense.

You are free to be lazy minded and believe that anyone who doesn't advocate your politics is a hateful bigot, akin to Fred Phelps, but I know you're wrong. So now you've established what I am to yourself, feel free to contribute something of worth.

JimiTime

Links234 wrote: »

except we're talking about CHILDREN whom this harmful treatment is banned for,

Firstly, what harmful treatment exactly? Secondly, I see the issue in relation to people under 18 and coercion. However, I'm sure any phychologist worth their salt can tell the difference between coercion and a real desire to change. The fact that the legislation does not deal with specifics, leads me to believe its a political move.

BTW, I've said it already that I'm not really that unhappy with the fact that this has been banned. I'm rather taking issue with the apparent political agenda at play.

you know that whole thing I talked about earlier in the thread about LGBT youth being at serious risk of being thrown out of their homes by religious parents? yeah, well that kind of coersion.

Well look at the flipside. Where will these folk turn now? This legislation wont stop what you are talking about. Whereas before they may have been treated by professionals, they may now turn to more dubious options. The advocates for reparation are now out of the reach of the APA also. The APA were in a position where they could have seen specific practices that were dubious, or harmful and reigned it in. Now, it could possibly become a free for all.

ButtimersLaw

koth wrote: »

Sexual orientation isn't a matter of choice. If it was then people could change their sexual preference whenever the mood takes them.

That's your contention. For me, I am prepared to leave that choice up to to every individual to make for themselves.

JimiTime wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't like to see heterosexuals seek to change their sexuality,

Again, I think its up to each individual to decide for themselves and don't consider it my business what anyone chooses. Why you have a view on what others should and should not do about their own sexual choices is a mystery. Are you not able to leave them alone and make their own choices, just as they leave you alone to make yours?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do heterosexuals never have any physiological and sociological issues around their expression of sexuality then?

Thats obviously a rhetorical question, and individuals have questions about the expression of sexuality, whether those individuals are gay, str8 or bisexual or undecided. Why do some constantly want to divide gays and str8's, when the issues faced by individuals are not so dissimilar.

People are people, and the issues faced by people are not generally dictated by their sexual preferences. Some gay people have no real issues, and some str8 people have huge issues.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You cannot therefore be surprised if some people believe you are on the same page as the likes of Fred Phelps - you both spout the same bigoted nonsense.

Thats just nonsense. Fred Phelps is a bigot insofar as he believes he has god on his side in his preaching of hate about others choices which extends to picketing funerals of gays and hurling loud vocal abuse at the mourners. The poster you accuse of being akin to Fred Phelps is nothing of the sort, and just because you may not like his views, there is no need to call him names like that - it demeans your argument when you make it personal.

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

Heres one example of someone who came through reparation.
http://www.comingoutloved.com/richard-cohens-story

Reparation? Or this guy's "Healing" Foundation?

Are you unashamed by what is suggested by those terms and by how offensive they are to any gay person?

JimiTime

Penn wrote: »

You mentioned earlier that a homosexual should be able to change their sexuality if they wanted natural children with a partner.

Hypothetically, lets say that I'm a heterosexual male (I am, that's not the hypothetical part), and I decided that I didn't want children. Should I be able to change my sexuality so that I'm attracted to men, that way I'm not depriving any woman who I may fall in love with from having natural children?

Or perhaps, hypothetically, I'm sterile. Wouldn't the option to change my sexuality be a benefit then? I could suddenly become attracted to men, where being sterile would not be a factor.

So would you then agree, that the ability to change sexuality from heterosexual to homosexual would be equally as valid as the ability to change sexuality from homosexual to heterosexual?

Not sure you understand the context of much reparative therapy though. Its usually about identifying issues that may have skewed ones sexual preference.

Like this:
http://www.comingoutloved.com/richard-cohens-story

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

Reparation? Or this guy's "Healing" Foundation?

Are you unashamed by what is suggested by those terms and by how offensive they are to any gay person?

I'm not ashamed by his testimony. Is there something specific in his testimony you think I should be ashamed of?

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm not ashamed by his testimony. Is there something specific in his testimony you think I should be ashamed of?

We both know that wasn't what I was referring to.

rep·a·ra·tion
noun /ˌrepəˈrāSHən/ 

The making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged
- the courts required a convicted offender to make financial reparation to his victim

The action of repairing something
- the old hall was pulled down to avoid the cost of reparation

This is a word you readily use to describe the process of un-gaying people. Still no qualms?

JimiTime

koth wrote: »

I was speaking about the actual reparation therapy. The therapy is claims (with no evidence to back up the claims) to facilitate people who choose to change their sexual preference.

It has many forms though. Some likely dubious.

All the examples you list portray homosexuality as a result of a damaged childhood. You realise that is a seriously outdated and illinformed stereotype?

Like most, probably everyone here, I'm not a scientist involved in this stuff. From what I've read, environment etc seems to have more influence than say genetics. Though if you have some info you could point me to, I'd be happy to have a look. Also, even if there are some cases where environment are a factor and others not, that is not a basis to ban all therapy.

No, it's the result of examining the treatments and finding no evidence that the treatments work.

Have you dug any deeper on this?

It was actually shown they can be very damaging to the patient.

Due to anecdotes (Not saying this means its wrong), but there are also anecdotes from the opposite side too.

And even with that, it was only banned with regards to minors. Any adult is free to attempt to rewire their sexual preference if they so wish.

Again though, on what basis? And have you dug any deeper into the basis?

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

It has many forms though. Some likely dubious.

Like most, probably everyone here, I'm not a scientist involved in this stuff. From what I've read, environment etc seems to have more influence than say genetics. Though if you have some info you could point me to, I'd be happy to have a look. Also, even if there are some cases where environment are a factor and others not, that is not a basis to ban all therapy.

Have you dug any deeper on this?

Due to anecdotes (Not saying this means its wrong), but there are also anecdotes from the opposite side too.

Again though, on what basis? And have you dug any deeper into the basis?

Any chance that, instead of asking other people to go find evidence to back up your points, you could "dig deeper" yourself and present your own argument? You know, as opposed to saying "I don't agree" over and over and over and over?

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

We both know that wasn't what I was referring to.

Cut the sh1te. I didn't know what you were talking about, if I did I WOULDN'T HAVE ASKED!

This is a word you readily use to describe the process of un-gaying people. Still no qualms?

In the context of the legislation it is used. I didn't know anything about it until this legislation, nor do I advocate, or distance myself from it. Some people believe themselves to be sexually broken, and want to try fix it. Did you read the guys testimony?
TBH, I don't think it matters that some people are offended by it. Funnily you should mention offence though, because from what I've read (And like I said earlier its open to correction, as its hard to find unbiased sources in this topic)it seems to be why it got declassified by the APA, rather than it being on account of some scientific discovery or whatnot.

Penn

JimiTime wrote: »

Not sure you understand the context of much reparative therapy though. Its usually about identifying issues that may have skewed ones sexual preference.

Like this:
http://www.comingoutloved.com/richard-cohens-story

I understand that (though I vehemently disagree with it). But hypothetically, if it was possible to change from one sexuality to another, would you agree that changing from heterosexual to homosexual would be beneficial under the situations I described, and if not, why?

Delirium

ButtimersLaw wrote: »

koth wrote: »

Sexual orientation isn't a matter of choice. If it was then people could change their sexual preference whenever the mood takes them.

That's your contention. For me, I am prepared to leave that choice up to to every individual to make for themselves.
.

How exactly do allow someone choose something that science says they have no control over?

I've no problem with people choosing something, if it's possible to do so.

JimiTime

koth wrote: »

How exactly do allow someone choose something that science says they have no control over?

Can you detail where 'science' says that? And when you say no-control, it is possible that something isn't chosen, but can be changed. IF some sexual behaviour is brought about from an issue in childhood for example, the person may not choose it, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they cannot change it.

I've no problem with people choosing something, if it's possible to do so.

So what about the testimony I posted earlier?

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

Cut the sh1te. I didn't know what you were talking about, if I did I WOULDN'T HAVE ASKED!

I can't imagine why. My post had two lines and I even employed italics.

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

I can't imagine why. My post had two lines and I even employed italics.

Well there you go. the fact that it was a response to a link to a guys testimony, which subsequently seemed to have nothing to do with it, it led to some confusion. Rest assured though, when I asked you were you referring to something in the link I posted (As you had it quoted), it was a genuine question to ask what you were referring to.

old hippy

JimiTime wrote: »

I advocate a person to be able to choose if they wish to change from their sexual desires. Be it a same sex attraction, attraction to pre pubescent children, attraction to animals, attraction to objects or whatever. If heterosexuality had the physiological and sociological issues that these other desires had, then I'd advocate people choosing to change from that also.

So, basically being gay is a bad thing and people should be encouraged to change, yes?

Bannasidhe

ButtimersLaw wrote: »

Thats just nonsense. Fred Phelps is a bigot insofar as he believes he has god on his side in his preaching of hate about others choices which extends to picketing funerals of gays and hurling loud vocal abuse at the mourners. The poster you accuse of being akin to Fred Phelps is nothing of the sort, and just because you may not like his views, there is no need to call him names like that - it demeans your argument when you make it personal.

No - by likening my sexual orientation - which Jimi is well aware of - to pedophilia and bestiality he made it personal.

Jimi has stated he believes homosexuality can be 'cured' - I take it personally when I am told I have an illness by someone who also states I am akin to child abusers.

King Mob

JimiTime wrote: »

If heterosexuality had the physiological and sociological issues that these other desires had, then I'd advocate people choosing to change from that also.

What physiological or sociological issues do homosexuals have that are not caused by bigotry in society?
Why are you comparing it to attractions to animals, children and objects?

JimiTime wrote: »

As for 'professional', what constitutes professional? There are many professional organisations who advocate reparation therapy (Which btw, I'm probably more dubious about than all of yee, due to me not really respecting the profession as a whole. My issue is the politics wrapped in 'science', when really its just politics)

By professional I mean organisations that represent certain professions.
No relevent professional bodies advocate any "reparation" therapy.
If they did you'd have posted a list instead of rambling on.

And again, the only one bring politics into this is you. You are the one convinced of this big gay conspiracy to make it seem like your position is not based on anything more solid than your own prejudices.

Also can you please go back and actually address the rest of my post?
It's a bit rich that you harp on about us not addressing that guys points, but then when we do you dodge and ignore.
Makes you look a bit silly.

old hippy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No - by likening my sexual orientation - which Jimi is well aware of - to pedophilia and bestiality he made it personal.

Jimi has stated he believes homosexuality can be 'cured' - I take it personally when I am told I have an illness by someone who also states I am akin to child abusers.

A common tactic for those who have a bee in their bonnet concerning homosexuality. It's not the first time we've seen such rot here and sadly, you just know it won't be the last.

Bannasidhe

old hippy wrote: »

A common tactic for those who have a bee in their bonnet concerning homosexuality. It's not the first time we've seen such rot here and sadly, you just know it won't be the last.

What really gets my goat is that people who trot out this BS have no idea- or don't give a ****e - of the real life implications of their statements.

I, a mother and a grandmother, have been likened to a child abuser simply because I am homosexual. This extends to every Gay parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, brother, sister, friend etc out there. The implication is don't trust your children with the Gays - they are just like pedophiles and need treatment so they can be 'cured' i.e. made 'safe'. :mad:

That is an outrageously offensive statement!

old hippy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What really gets my goat is that people who trot out this BS have no idea- or don't give a ****e - of the real life implications of their statements.

I, a mother and a grandmother, have been likened to a child abuser simply because I am homosexual. This extends to every Gay parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, brother, sister, friend etc out there. The implication is don't trust your children with the Gays - they are just like pedophiles and need treatment so they can be 'cured' i.e. made 'safe'. :mad:

That is an outrageously offensive statement!

Of course it is and those who serve it up (either as raw hatred or butter wouldn't melt fashion) are entirely aware of it.

That's the way real abusers operate. You've been witness to plenty of posters who have been very vocal on what they think of us deviants and how we are ill/dangerous/etc. And yet, the only malice I can see, is theirs.

And some people wonder why there are pride marches? When all round you are judging and condemning you - should we be silent and meekly accept the injustices and hatreds?

Hell, no!